Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.36 seconds)

St.Josephs Educational Trust,Chennai vs Dcit, Central Circle-193), Chennai on 6 June, 2025

genuine hearing and not an empty formality. When the statute requires the AO to give reasonable hearing before imposition of penalty, the AO was duty bound to give proper notice spelling out the charge/fault, under which, the AO intends to put the assessee on notice for levy of penalty, so that the assessee would be able to defend its case. Therefore, we are of the view that the AO was duty bound to issue notice spelling out the specific limb under which penalty proceedings has been initiated. In the instant case, as noted since the search was initiated on 07.11.2019, the AO ought to have issued notice under sub-section (1A) of section 271AAB of the Act and also mentioned the specific limb [clause (a) or clause (b) of sec.271AAB(1A) of the Act] under which the assessee is being proceeded against for levy of penalty. Different consequences are envisaged if charged under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1A) of section 271AAB of the Act. The AO therefore should have issued proper notice to the assessee. Omnibus notice (SCN) betrays application of mind by the AO and issuance of such kind of notices has been deprecated by the Hon'ble High Courts in several cases including the jurisdictional Madras High in the case of Shri R. Elangoan v. PCIT in TCA No.770 & 771/2018 dated 30.03.2021, wherein the Hon'ble Madras High Court upheld the ITA Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 (AYs 2018-19 & 2020-21) St. Joseph's Educational Trust & ITA Nos.3295 to 3297/Chny/2024 (AYs 2018-19 to 2020-21) St. Joseph's Institute of Science & Technology Trust :: 47 ::
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer- Ward-1/Jao, ... vs Arulanandham Ber Syril Antow, ... on 2 February, 2026

18. Similarly, in Ramesh Shroff vs CIT [2020] 120 taxmann.com 403 (Madras) and K.P.R. Developers Ltd vs PCIT [2020] 117 taxmann.com 822 (Madras), it has been held that aerial distance certified by competent authorities is determinative, and agricultural land situated beyond prescribed limits does not constitute a capital asset.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1